Ethical Compost

by digby

I hate to retreat so quickly to my vituperative blogger persona, but this is just outrageous. Via Julia, I see that George Bush once again shows his philosophical depth:

Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical — and it is not the only option before us.

Right. That’s a perfectly respectable philosophy that’s been held by many great people for centuries. It’s called pacifism and it’s about as far from the philosophy of this bloodthirsty boor as you can get.

In fairness, he may not realize that because when his briefers discuss the wanton killing of little Iraqi or Afghan children, it’s not called “destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life” it’s called “collateral damage.”

This man led an invasion of a country that posed no immediate threat in the name of “giving birth” to a new democracy and saving the Iraqis from a madman. He is responsible for a whole lot of killing of fully formed human lives which he constantly claims was in the hopes of saving other human lives. In fact, he continues to insist that all this Iraqi carnage will be worth it one day because the US will have brought all the survivors freedom, which is a wonderful value, but since George W. Bush’s idea of freedom could more accurately be defined as chaos, it’s likely that many Iraqis hardly find the trade-off worthwhile.

I’m not sure we need to hear any more lectures on ethics from a man who thinks that blastocysts in a petri dish cannot be destroyed in the interest of saving the lives of others, but hundreds of thousands of people can be violently killed in order to carry out a deluded American Enterprise Institute political science experiment.

Update: Scarecrow at FDL has another take on this.

.